An empirical evaluation of touch and tangible interfaces for tabletop displays

Tabletop systems have become quite popular in recent years, during which there was considerable enthusiasm for the development of new interfaces. In this paper, we establish a comparison between touch and tangible interfaces. We set up an experiment involving several actions like translation and rotation. We recruited 40 participants to take part in a user study and we present our results with a discussion on the design of touch and tangible interfaces. Our contribution is an empirical study showing that overall, the tangible interface is much faster but under certain conditions, the touch interface could gain the upper hand.

[1]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays , 2007, CHI.

[2]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Mechanical constraints as computational constraints in tabletop tangible interfaces , 2007, CHI.

[3]  Morten Fjeld.  Graspable interfaces : Establishing design principles , 1998 .

[4]  Paul Dourish,et al.  A handle on what's going on: combining tangible interfaces and ambient displays for collaborative groups , 2007, TEI.

[5]  William Buxton,et al.  An empirical evaluation of graspable user interfaces: towards specialized, space-multiplexed input , 1997, CHI.

[6]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Topobo in the wild: longitudinal evaluations of educators appropriating a tangible interface , 2008, CHI.

[7]  William Buxton,et al.  Human-computer interaction: a multidisciplinary approach , 1987 .

[8]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Extending tabletops to support flexible collaborative interactions , 2006, First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP '06).

[9]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: beyond pixels , 2008, TEI.

[10]  W. Eric L. Grimson,et al.  Adaptive background mixture models for real-time tracking , 1999, Proceedings. 1999 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Cat. No PR00149).

[11]  Pierre David Wellner,et al.  Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk , 1993, CACM.

[12]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Affordances for manipulation of physical versus digital media on interactive surfaces , 2007, CHI.

[13]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys, for text selection on a CRT , 1987 .

[14]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  High Precision Touchscreens: Design Strategies and Comparisons with a Mouse , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[15]  P. Fitts,et al.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  Paul Marshall,et al.  Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? , 2007, TEI.

[17]  Sergi Jordà,et al.  The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces , 2007, TEI.

[18]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Lucid touch: a see-through mobile device , 2007, UIST.

[19]  Mark Fiala,et al.  ARTag, a fiducial marker system using digital techniques , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[20]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces , 1995, CHI '95.

[21]  Steven K. Feiner,et al.  Rubbing and tapping for precise and rapid selection on touch-screen displays , 2008, CHI.

[22]  S. Glantz,et al.  Multiple Linear Regression: Accounting for Multiple Simultaneous Determinants of a Continuous Dependent Variable , 2008, Circulation.

[23]  Jefferson Y. Han.  Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection , 2005, UIST.

[24]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  High precision touch screen interaction , 2003, CHI '03.

[25]  Morten Fjeld,et al.  BUILD-IT: a planning tool for construction and design , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.